DOCUMENTS 


RELATIVE  TO  THE 


DISMISSION 


LORING  D.  DEWEY 


FROM 


THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINAMY 


IN  NEW- YORK. 


1816. 


Ex  ICtbrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"  Ever'tbind  comes  t'  bim  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


It  is  deemed  necessary,  to  a  fair  understanding  of  the  following  docu- 
ments, to  present  to  the  public  a  brief  statement  of  the  facts  which 
preceded  my  dismission  from  the  Theological  Seminary  in  New- York. 

The  Discourse  which  procured  this  dismission,  was  prepared  to  fulfil,  in 
my  turn,  my  part  of  the  ordinary  duties  that  devolve  on  the  members  of 
a  private  Theological  Society,  composed  solely  of  the  students  of  the  Se- 
minary, and  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  Theological  investigation. 
The  Society,  believing  my  views  erroneous,  appointed  two  of  their 
number  a  committee,  to  request  the  discourse  for  examination,  and 
to  make  a  report  to  the  Society.  It  was  given  them,  and  being 
represented  to  contain  many  and  dangerous  errors,  the  Society  di- 
rected their  committee  to  lay  the  report  before  the  Professors  of  the 
Seminary.  The  discourse  being  requested  by  the  Professors,  for  their 
examination,  was  condemned  as  heretical  and  contradictory,  in  a 
conversation  I  had  with  them  ;  and  a  few  days  after  the  letter  of  dismis- 
sion was  received ;  which,  as  it  contains  the  grounds  of  dismission,  is 
published  as  one  of  the  documents.  To  that  letter  a  reply,  explaining 
some  of  the  reasons  why  I  maintain  the  opinions  I  do,  was  made  ;  as  at 
that  time  I  had  no  contemplation  of  publishing  the  discourse.  The  reply, 
that  the  public  may  know  all  relating  to  my  dismission,  will  also  be  found 
in  the  following  pages.  But  as  the  dismission  is  necessarily  public,  and  as 
it  necessarily  exposes  me  to  obloquy,  wherever  it  is  khowa,  especially 
while  each  is  left  to  form  his  own  conjectures,  with  no  data  to  judge  by, 
the  natural  conclusion  being,  that  if  a  person  is  dismissed  from  any  Se- 
minary, and  certainly,  if  from  a  Theological  Seminary,  there  must  be  some 
just  cause,  and  one  of  course  reproachful  to  the  person  dismissed ;  it  is 
thought  just,  both  to  the  Seminary  and  to  myself,  to  make  the  grounds 
of  the  dismission  public  also.  The  discourse,  therefore,  unaltered,  unfit 
for  publication,  as  a  production  usually  would  be,  which  is  prepared  for 
such  an  occasion  as  that  on  which  it  was  delivered,  is  given  to  the  public, 
that  all  who  are  inclined  to  judge,  may  have  the  means  of  forming  a  fair 
judgment,  whether  it  be  for  or  against  the  writer.  Notes,  byway  of  il- 
lustrating some  points,  barely  hinted  at,  or  but  slightly  discussed,  are 
added,  to  exhibit  more  clearly  the  writer's  views.  A  few  words  explana- 
tory, between  brackets,  have  been  added  in  the  body  of  the  discourse. 


4 


4 


But  in  no  instance  has  there  been  even  a  verbal  alteration  from  the  ori- 
ginal, excepting  in  one  or  two  grammatical  inaccuracies. 

To  these  already  suggested,  there  have  been  furnished  some  induce- 
ments to  publish,  from  the  consideration  that  a  Theological  Seminary 
holds  a  high  interest  in  the  feelings  of  the  religious  public,  and  that  it  u 
fit  that  public  should  know  what  qualifications  are  requisite  for  a  student 
who  may  wish  to  pass  through  a  course  of  Theological  study  in  this  Se- 
minary. 

To  this  I  may  add,  that  the  opinions  of  several  most  respectable  gen- 
tlemen, have  concurred  to  strengthen  my  own,  in  favor  of  publication. 
All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

L.  D.  DEWEY. 

New- York,  1816. 


DISCOURSE 


ROMANS  III.  24. 
Being  justified,  

These  words,  you  perceive,  are  taken  from  St.  Paul's 
exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justification.  The  use  I  in- 
tend to  make  of  them  is  to  place  them  as  the  basis  of  an 
investigation  into  the  scriptural  idea  of  this  doctrine.  As 
it  is  an  exclamation  long  ago  made,  "  How  should  man 
be  just  with  God  !"  and  as  the  apostle  applies  these  words 
to  man,  sinful  man,  it  is  intended  to  show  what  he  meant 
by  them.  That  he  meant  literal  justification,  we  do  not 
suppose ;  for  Paul  was  no  opposer  of  the  doctrine  of  hu- 
man depravity.  Man,  being  sinful,  can  never  present 
himself  before  his  God,  and  say,  "  I  am  clean  ;  there 
is  no  fault  in  me."  This,  we  know,  would  be  his  li- 
teral justification ;  but  this,  we  also  know,  can  never  be 
his.  Hence  the  inquiry,  what  does  the  apostle  mean,  when 
he  uses  the  words,  "  being  justified  ?"  This,  with  a  few 
inferences,  will  constitute  the  subject  matter  of  what  I  shall 
say  at  this  time. 

The  inquiry  is,  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  words,  "  be- 
ing justified  ?" 

I  shall  first  notice  two  uses  of  these  words,  in  their  ap- 
plication to  the  saved  of  God.  One  in  reference  to  the 
state  of  a  man  as  to  his  eternal  welfare  ;  as  we  say  of  a 
man,  he  is  in  a  justified  state  ;  being  justified,  his  is  a  hap- 
py condition  :  that  is,  he  is  now  a  child  of  God,  an  heir  of 
glory.  Another  use  is  in  reference  to  the  acceptance  of 
the  sinner  by  God,  that  act  of  adjudication  which  transfers 
a  sinner  from  a  state  of  condemnation,  to  that  in  which 
there  is  no  condemnation.  The  word  justified  is  used  in 
both  of  these  ways  by  the  New-Testament  writers.  The 
latter  you  must  perceive  to  be  the  subject  of  the  present 


6 


inquiry ;  for  the  first  needs  no  investigation.  We  know 
what  the  state  of  those  is  who  are  justified,  whether  they 
be  the  just  made  perfect,  or  those  still  warring  with  their 
depravity.  But  the  other  use  has  afforded  ground  of  con- 
troversy. One  says,  it  is  a  sentence  which  pronounces 
the  sinner  just,  truly  and  wholly  so,  and  thus  tnlitles  him 
to  all  the  joys  of  heaven.  Another  says,  it  is  a  sentence  of 
pardon,  a  grant  of  all  the  favours  of  God,  even  the  gift  of 
eternal  life.  Which  of  these  does  the  apostle  mean  ?  for, 
that  he  fi^ant  one  of  them,  I  think  can  easily  be  shown. 
Which  of  t/ie.sc  is  the  true  interpretation  ?  One  contends 
for  the  Liu  ral,  ind-cial  sense  of  the  word  ;  although  it  [the 
sentence  that  declares  the  sinner  just  in  such  a  sense]  does 
not  result  from  the  sinner's  own  merits,  but  from  the  me- 
rits of  another  ["  made  his."]  The  other  contends  for  a 
figurative  sense  of  the  word,  meaning  unlimited  pardon, 
granted  for  the  sake  and  intercession  of  another.  The 
latter  was  the  faith  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Di- 
vines, as  appears  from  their  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cate- 
chism. "  Justification,"  say  they,  "  is  an  act  of  God's 
free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accept- 
eth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight a."    I  do  not  give  the  other 

a  This  is  the  definition,  simply,  all  of  it : — and  what  follows  both  in  the 
Confession  i>iid  Catechism,  is  a  statement  of  its  condition,  and  the  waj  it 
is  conferred  upon  the  believer.  That  this  discourse  will  afford  an  infer- 
ence that  their  representation  of  the  mode  of  justifying  the  sinner,  is  not 
correct  in  every  particular,  I  will  not  deny  ;  provided  they  meant  by  the 
word  '  impute'  and  the  phrase  '  accepteth  us  as  righteous,'  what  some 
understand  them  to  mean  ;  and  not  as  I  have  construed  the  phrase  1  ac- 
cepteih,'  Sic.  and  understand  imputation.  I  took  the  definition,  because 
I  believed  it  correct,  and  because  it  is  well  known ;  and  1  did  not  then 
know  but  I  understood  it  as  others  do.  I  did  not  suppose  the  words  '  at 
righteous,'  were  understood  by  any  to  represent  the  real  character  of  the 
justifed  ;  but  the  manner  of  their  acceptance.  I  wa«.  led  to  make  the 
rein-irk  I  did  on  the  phrase  for  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  and  of  being 
explicit.  But  1  since  learn  thai  I  not  only  understood  this  phrase  differ- 
ently from  my  fellow  students  and  others  who  hold  like  peculiar  sen- 
timents, but  also  the  word  '  pardoneth.'  In  a  following  note  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  speak  of  pardon.  In  explication  of  my  under- 
standing of  tut;  above  phrase,  I  will  add,  I  suppose  in  that  transac- 
tion, the  Duity  views  man  as  he  really  is,  unrighteous,  a  violater 
of  his  law,  and  that  there  is  no  such  imputation  of  righteousness 
as  alters  this,  his  roal  character,  any  more  than  there  is  an  imputation  of 
sin  to  Christ  of  such  a  nature  as  to  alter  his  character.  He,  in  the  midst 
of  his  sufferings,  was  truly  righteous  ;  we,  in  tht  midst  of  heavenly  joys 
(if  we  are  so  wise  as  to  improve  offered  mercy)  shall  remain  truly  sin- 
ners ;  but  pardontd  sinners  ;  therefore  under  no  obligation  to  punishment . 

 therefore  fit  objects  of  the  mercies  of  God,  and  therefore  shall  we  have 

cause  ever  to  shout  the  praises  of  redeeming  love.  While  on  earth,  our 
Saviour  was  not  ashamed  to  be  found  in  the  mi' i- 1  of  sinners  ;  in  bis  glory 
too,  theirs  shall  be  the  note  of  his  h?ghe=t  praise.    If  this  is  true,  then 


7 


part  of  the  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  is  justifica- 
tion ?"  because,  at  this  time,  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
condition  ol  justification  ;  at  most,  no  more  than  their  close 
connexion  will  require.  It  will  not  be  my  endeavour  to  in- 
validate the  testimony  of  this  Assembly  of  Divines  ;  but  to 
show,  by  a  few  considerations,  the  truth  of  tiieir  definition  ; 
that  St.  Paul's  meaning  was  as  they  represent  it,  and  as  I 
understand  them  to  represent  it.  One  remark  illustrative 
of  my  understanding  the  phrase,  "  accepteth  us  as  right- 
eous in  his  sight."  It  means  that,  if  we  were  righteous, 
our  acceptance  by  God  would  not  be  different  [from  what 
it  is;  certainly  not  better,  although  sinners],  and  not  that 
he  accepts  because  righteous,  with  a  righteousness  really 
ours,  though  not  of  our  working  out. 

To  establish  the  truth  of  the  above  definition,  I  lay  down 
these  three  propositions. 

I.  Moral  turpitude,  guilt  of  sin,  can  be  removed*  only  by 

{>ardon ;  therefore  the  sinner  can  never  be  justified  in  any 
iteral  sense  of  that  word  [justification]. 

II.  Pardon  is  the  way  guilt  is  removed*,  in  the  Bible 
scheme  of  redemption  ;  therefore  the  word  justified  must 
be  used  in  a  figurative  sense. 

III.  Justified  is  used  to  signify  pardon  in  the  New-Tes- 
tament. 

I.  Proposition.  Moral  turpitude,  guilt  of  sin,  can  be  re- 
moved only  by  "pardon. 

By  guilt,  I  mean  obligation  to  punishment ;  and  not  w  hat 
is  usually  meant  in  the  use  of  that  word  ;  as,  when  we  say 
of  a  person,  he  is  guilty,  he  shows  guilt,  he  has  guilt : — for 
what  we  mean  in  such  a  use,  can  never  be  removed,  be- 
cause ever  will  it  be  applicable  to  say  of  that  person,  he  is 
guilty  of  that  act,  while  it  remains  a  fact  that  he  did  that 
act.  But  obligation  to  puishment  can  be  removed  :  there 
is  a  way  by  which  it  may  be  said  of  the  guilty,  thou  hast 
guilt  no  more.    The  strong  chain  that  chains  the  criminal 

the  phrase  declares  the  manner  of  our  acceptance — the  way  we  are  treat- 
ed ;  but  does  not  specify  our  character,  only  impliedly,  and  the  impli- 
cation i9,  that  we  are  unrighteous.  It  says,  had  we  been,  our  whole  ex- 
istence, of  spotless,  righteousness,  our  treatment  from  the  hands  of  God 
would  not  have  been  better  ;  the  blessings  he  bestows  more  precious  ;  no, 
nor  so  much  so — our  being  unrighteous  enhances  the  preciousness  of  the 
unmerited  bounty. 

*  By  removed,  I  mean  annulled,  abrogated,  taken  out  of 
existence  as  a  claim. 

[The  notes  distinguished  by  asterisks  were  added  before  the 
discourse  was  given  to  the  Committee  of  the  Society.] 


8 


to  the  endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  broken  law,  can  be 
sundered.  Its  band  of  brass  will  melt  at  the  touch  of  mer- 
cy. I'ardon  can  unloose  its  firm  hold,  and  pardon  only. 
For  nothing  can  cancel  *  this  obligation,  because  nothing 
can  alter  the  demerit  of  sin.  Moral  pollution  must  ever 
remain  moral  pollution.  Our  God  cannot  change  its  na- 
ture ;  and  the  being  once  contaminated  by  its  baleful 
touch,  can  never  be  cleansed  but  by  the  streams  of  mercy. 
The  turpitude  of  sin  nothing  can  wipe  away.  Natural 
turpitude  may  be  washed  away — the  gold  that  has  become 
dim,  may  be  burnished  again — the  garments  that  are  pol- 
luted may  be  cleansed  by  washing — but  the  stain  of  the 
soul,  moral  pollution,  deviation  from  right,  breach  of  law, 
nothing  can  undo,  nothing  remedy,  nothing  wash  away,  no- 
thing take  out  its  indelible  hue,  save  this  word  of  God, 
"  Sins  and  iniquities  I  will  remember  no  more  for  ever." 
Man,  being  bound  by  the  very  constitution  of  his  nature 
ever  to  do  right,  if  he  but  once  step  aside  from  the  path  of 
rectitude,  and  should  then  return,  and  never  again  swerve 
from  his  course  ;  still  this  aberration  must  ever  remain 
against  him  for  condemnation.  Ten  thousand  on  each 
side  may  continue  undeviating  in  their  course  ;  but  their 
course  can  never  alter  his  no  more  than  his  theirs ;  their  per- 
fection never  can  remedy  his  imperfection,  no  more  than 
his  imperfection  injure  their  perfection.  Still  it  must 
remain  the  crooked  among  the  straight ;  and  this  too,  al- 
though those  courses  are  run  by  beings  infinitely  superior 
to  himself.  For  what  can  be  more  than  straight  ?  And 
what  being,  capable  of  moral  action,  is  not  bound  to  do 
right — go  straight  ?  And  what  one,  capable  of  moral  ac- 
tion, is  not  bound  to  do  right  for  himself  ?  And  what  one, 
bound  to  do  right  for  himself,  can  do  more  than  right — go 
more  than  straight  ?  The  being,  then,  that  is  chargeable 
with  sin,  must  ever  be  chargeable  ;  and  bound  to  endure 
the  penalty  of  the  broken  law,  unless  the  offended  Lawgiv- 

b  I  find  I  have  attached  more  to  the  meaning  of  this  word  cancel,  than  it 
imports  in  its  ordinary  use.  I  have  used  it  to  mean  not  merely,  to  cross 
out,  but  to  cro.cs  out  in  consideration  of  a  claim's  being  satisfied — as  the 
charge  on  a  merchant's  bonk  is  cancelled — crossed  out  in  consideration  of 
the  amount's  being  balanced.  I  got  my  idea  of  the  word  from  its  use  in 
mathematics — as  in  the  reduction  of  a  compound  fraction  to  a  simple  one, 
the  numerator  of  one  term,  if  the  same  figure  as  the  denominator  of  ano- 

ther,  or  its  own,  cancels  that  denominator. :      X  —  X  —  =  ~.  \  or,  in 

%       i       4  4 

algebraical  equations,  a  negative  quantity  is  said  to  cancel  a  positive 
quantity  of  the  same  symbol. 


9 


i  say,  "  I  will  remember  it  against  thee  no  more  for 
ever."  - 

Substitution  cannot  do  it.  All  it  can  do,  is,  to  alter  the 
direction  of  its  force  ;  direct  it  from  the  first  criminal  to 
the  substitute.  It  does  not  remove  the  obligation  to  pu- 
nishment. It  cannot  annul  its  force.  Still  its  victim  is 
held  in  steeled  jaws.  No  exertions  can  rescue  it.  But  let 
mercy  prevail  with  him  who  holdeth  judgment,  and  this 
more  than  brazen  band  is  solved  in  the  breath  of  forgive- 
ness. This  reason  sanctions,  and  what  says  the  scrip- 
ture ?  So  far  from  pointing  out  any  other  way,  it  assures 
us  that  even  this — forgiveness,  pardon,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  perfections  of  Deity,  without  an  expiation. 
"  Through  his  blood  we  have  redemption,  even  the  for- 
giveness of  sins."  "  Without  the  shedding  of  blood,  there 
is  no  remission,"  says  St.  Paul ;  and  the  reason  is  obvious. 
If  man  is  under  obligation  to  punishment,  some  one  is  ob- 
ligated to  punish  him  ;  and  as  all  sin  is  committed  against 
God,  God,  as  the  lawgiver,  must  be  the  being  obligated 
to  punish  him.  Now,  as  he  that  is  offended,  alone  has 
the  right  to  forgive  the  offence— this  right  can  be  exercised 
by  GaAonly.  But  being  under  obligation  to  punish  the 
offender,  the  exercise  of  forgiveness  cannot  take  place 
till  this  obligation  is  removed.  For  mercy  can  never  take 
precedence  of  justice.  No  ;  we  never  suppose  obligation 
can  be  removed  at  the  pleasure  of  him  that  is  obligated. 
He  may  fulfil  its  demands  ;  but  never  may  nor  can  release 
himself  from  its  demands.  So  that  if  we  suppose  Deity 
inclined  to  exercise  mercy,  not  only  his  moral  perfections 
would  forbid  it ;  but  this  obligation  to  punish  the  trans- 
gressor, would  restrain  pardon,  so  long  as  it  existed  ; 
and  it  must  exist  till  justice  is  satisfied.  Hence  "  without 
the  shedding  of  blood,"  blood  which  would  satisfy  jus- 
tice, "  there  is  no  remission."  Before  I  proceed  to  the 
next  proposition,  1  will  remark,  that  these  four  principles, 
viz.  obligation  to  punishment,  and  pardon  for  its  de- 
mands— obligation  to  punish,  and  expiation  for  its  de- 
mands, are  so  closely  connected,  that  I  know  of  no  texts 
which  contains  one  without  another,  and  frequently  all  of 
them.  Hence  some  texts  seem  to  place  that  which  expi- 
ates the  obligation  to  punish,  as  the  expiation  of  the  obli- 
gation to  punishment.  Hence  the  idea  which  some  enter- 
tain with  regard  to  imputed  righteousness11. 

t  Having,  as  they  suppose,  ascertained  that  tfa$  obligation  to  punish- 

B 


10 


II.  Prop.    Pardon  is  the  way  by  which  guilt  is  removed 
in  the  bible  plan  of  redemption. 

mcnt  is  not  given  up  only  by  its  demands  being  satisfied,  they  conclude 
and  believe  they  find  texts  to  substantiate  it,  that  eternal  life  is  obtained 
only  upon  some  just  ground  of  claim.  But  as  man  is  unrighteous  and  can- 
not have  it  in  himself,  and  as  the  righteousness  of  sanctification  is  not  this 
ground,  but  rather  a  benefit  derived  by  this  claim,  they  go  to  that  very 

 i  salvation  which  is  nothing  but  grace  and  mercy  from  beginning 

to  end,  that  plan  which  God  most  graciously  devised  for  the  recovery  of 
fallen,  lost  man,  to  find  a  ground  of  claim  to  that  eternal  life  which  this 
plan  of  redemption  brought  to  light — and  this  they  find  in  an  imputation 
of  such  a  nature  as  brings  with  it  a  grant  of  a  "  right  and  title  unto  eternal 
life."  This  imputation  includes  in  it,  "  1st.*  a  grant  or  donation  of  the 
thing  itself,  (viz.  righteousness)  unto  us,  to  be  ours  on  some  just  ground 
and  foundation  And  "  2d.  a  will  of  dealing  with  us,  oran  actual  deal- 
ing with  us  according  unto  that  made  ours."  The  first  particular  is  that 
to  which  I  exclusively  refer,  and  object.  It  would  seem  from  this  as  if 
they  were  unw'dling  to  receive  the  blessings  of  immortality,  as  free  gifts 
dispensed  by  n.ercy  and  grace — grace  too,  as  it  respects  the  giver  as  well 
as  receiver ;  that  is,  to  confer  which  there  exists  no  obligation  of  any  kind, 
binding  the  giver  to  give — but  they  must  have  these  blessings  by  '  right 
and  title,1  although  the  'right  and  title1  is  a  grant — so  that  the  blessings 
themselves  they  obtain  by  claim — the  claim  by  grace.  Imputation,  I  un- 
derstand the  bible  to  represent  to  be  a  "  dealing"  with  us,  in  view  of 
what  our  Saviour  has  done  "  to  declare  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  he 
might  be  just,  and  thejustifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus,  as  if  we  were 
righteous — and  thi-  not  on  account  of  a  righteousness  "  «»/</«  It  is  0***  *4 

the  same  as  is  exemplified  in  the  case  of  Shimei,  2  Sam.  xix.  chap.  19.  v. 
Shimei  beseeches  David  to  deal  with  him  as  if  he  had  not  been  a  traitor. 
He  does  not  request  that  David  would  repute  bim  loyal,  but  not  to  impute 
his  iniquity,  that  is,  certainly,  if  it  means  any  thing,  that  he  would  not 
deal  with  him  according  to  his  sin,  that  is,  punish  him ;  but  deal  with  him 
as  if  he  had  not  sinned  ;  that  is,  as  if  he  had  adhered  to  his  cause, — and  so 
David  understood  it — for  he  says,  "  thou  shalt  not  die,"  "  and  he  swan, 
unto  him."  "  For,  said  David,  do  I  not  know  I  am  this  day  king  in 
Israel  ?"  This  is  the  reason  why  he  would  not  punish  Shimei  :  And  the 
reason  why  God  will  not  punish  believers,  is  the  mediation  of  his  Son — 
for  his  sake  he  will  not  impute  their  sin.  "  As  David  also  describeth  the 
blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without 
works  ;  saying,  blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  are  covered  ;  blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute 
sin."t  '  Cometh  this  blessedness,'  according  to  Dr.  Owen,  u  upon  the  in- 
tcrveniency"  of  "  a  donation"  of  righteousness  unto  them  who  enjoy  this 
blessedness  ?  No  such  condition  mentioned  here.  The  not  imputing  sin  is 
the  imputing  righteousness  ;  that  is,  the  '  dealing1  with  them  as  if  they  had 
not  sinned,  is  the  '  dealing"1  with  them  as  if  they  were  righteous.  Paul,  as 
appears  from  v.  6,  viewed  it  in  this  light.  To  exhibit  the  "  blessedness  of 
the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness,"  he  quotes  a  text  in  which 
this  blessedness  is  declared  to  result  from  the  not-imputing  sin ;  and  of 
course,  (the  6th  v.  more  than  implies  it)  the  imputing  of  righteousness, 
because,  the  '  dealing''  with  a  man  as  if  he  were  not  a  sinner,  is  the  '  deal- 

*  See  Owen  on  Justification,  Chap.  vn.  page  233,  from 
which  all  the  quotations  of  this  note  are  taken,  Scripture 
excepted. 

t  Romans  iv.  6,  7,  and  8  verses. 


11 


This  our  reason  could  never  have  told  us.    Had  not 

God  revealed  himself  merciful  and  gracious,  our  reason 
could  never  have  said  to  him,  '  there  is  forgiveness  with 
thee,  that  thou  mayest  be  feared.'  But  where  reason  fails, 
God  has  abundantly  supplied  light.  To  the  word,  there- 
fore, and  the  testimony,  to  make  out  this  proposition. 
And  the  first  thing  I  shall  adduce  is  God's  declaration  of 
himself— —to  be  "  the  Lord,  the  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  long  suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and 
truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity 
and  transgression,  and  sin,  and  that  will  by  no  means 
clear  the  guilty."  Here  God  declares  that  he  is  a  pardon- 
ing God  ;  and  yet  another  part  of  this  declaration  seems 
to  deny  this.  Now  if  God  forgives,  he  must  forgive  the 
guilty,  and  if  he  forgives  the  guilty,  he  must  [by  that  act] 
clear  him  of  the  consequences  of  his  guilt,  or  the  forgive- 
ness is  nothing ; — therefore  this  act  will  contradict  the 
literal  import  of  one  part  of  the  declaration  he  has  made 
of  himself.  But  God  cannot  contradict  himself ;  therefore 
the  literal  import  of  both  parts  of  this  declaration  cannot 
be  true — therefore  one  of  them  must  be  taken  in  a  sense 
different,  from  what  it  bears  on  the  face  of  it.  I  there- 
fore believe  the  phrase,  "  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the 
guilty,"  refers  to  his  regard  for  his  own  character  while  he 
forgives  ;  and  means  that  he  does  not  disregard  his  right 
and  obligation  to  punish  the  offender  when  he  forgives  the 
transgression.  '  I  forgive  you  ;  but  I  do  not  do  it  in  such  a 
way  as  to  bring  a  stain  on  my  own  most  holy  name.  In 
such  a  way  I  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty.'*    The  next 

ing"1  with  him  as  if  he  were  righteous  ;  but  by  no  means  implies  that  in 
this  imputation  there  is  included  the  donation  of  a  righteousness,  and  there- 
fore a  '  dealing'  with  him  "  according  unto  it."  And  here  is  the  propriety 
of  believing  in  Jesus  in  order  to  justification.  If  there  could  be  such  a  thing 
as  a  '  donation'  of  righteousness,  I  do  not  see  why  it  could  not  be  given  to 
one,  as  well  as  to  another,  whether  he  believed  in  Jesus  or  not,  and  thus 
the  greatest  despiser  of  Jesus  be  justified,  while  such,  as  well  as  his  most 
faithful  follower.  But  it  is  not  so ;  there  is  no  such  absurd  doctrine  as 
this  in  the  bible.  No  one  supposes  that  king  David  first  made  a  donation 
of  loyalty  to  Shimei,  and  then  "  by  virtue  of  such  an  imputation"  treat- 
ed him  as  he  did.  We  instantly  see  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition  in 
this  case,  or  in  any  such  transaction  among  men  ;  but  in  our  salvation  from 
the  consequences  of  our  sins  against  the  king  of  heaven,  it  is  not  absurd,  as 
Deity  is  one  of  the  parties  concerned,  to  believe  him  to  proceed  in  this 
way,  according  to  some  expositions  of  this  doctrine. 

*  If  this  is  not  correct — then  we  must  give  a  different  mean- 
ing to  the  phrase  "  forgiving  iniquity,"  &c.  from  our  usual  idea 


12 


proof  is  taken  from  the  types  of  Christ.  First,  the  Pas- 
chal Lamb.  This  was  killed,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
in  his  course  of  destruction,  might  pass  over  the  houses 
whose  door-posts  were  sprinkled  with  its  blood — not  to 
take  away  the  desert  of  this  destruction  of  the  first  born. 
Now  if  this  destruction  was  deserved,  the  Israelites  were 
deserving  also  ;  and  if  deserving,  it  is  certain  there  is  no 
intimation  that  the  desert  was  taken  away  by  this  blood  : 
but  says  God,  "  the  blood  shall  be  a  token  on  the  houses 
where  you  are,  and  when  I  see  the  blood  I  will  pass  over 
you  :"  not  a  token  that  your  desert  of  judgment  is  taken 
away  ;  but  a  sign  where  were  those  who  believed  in  God, 
that  he  would  spare  those  who  owned  him  a  righteous  and 
faithful  God  :  and  God  passed  over  them  in  mercy. 

Second,  The  offerings  made  on  account  of  sin  under 
the  Levitical  dispensation.  These  were  of  no  effect  to 
remove  guilt,  but  their  express  design  was,  as  we  are  told 
in  the  4th  Chap,  of  Lev.  to  be  a  foundation  for  forgive- 
ness ;  or  rather  to  present  to  the  mind  a  sensible  declara- 
tion of  this  truth  ;  there  is  no  pardon  for  sin,  until  the  ob- 
ligation to  punish  is  removed,  thus  directing  the  mind  to 
the  great  propitiatory  sacrifice  that  was  to  be  made  for  the 
removal  of  this  obligation.  All  the  sacrifices  for  sin  were 
of  this  nature ;  hence  says  Paul,  "  without  the  shedding 
of  blood  there  was  no  remission."  They  were  all  of  no 
avail  without  the  promise,  "  it  shall  be  forgiven  him." 
And  in  this  promise  it  is  expressly  said,  forgiveness  re- 
moves the  guilt ;  and  the  converse  of  Paul's  declaration  is, 
that  there  was  remission  of  sin  :  and  this  is  my  propositi- 
on, that  remission  is  the  way  sin  is  removed.  Again, 
the  brazen  serpent.  The  looking  upon  this,  was  the  me- 
dium of  the  cure  of  the  bite  of  the  poisonous  serpent. 
Now  we  know  there  was  no  power  in  the  brass  or  its  shape 
to  remove  the  poison  ;  God  destroyed  the  venom.  As  to 
the  sinner,  guilt  is  the  venom.  The  power  of  God  de- 
stroyed the  venom  of  the  bite  ;  he  therefore  destroys  the 
venom  of  sin  ;  he  removes  the  guilt,  and  in  the  way  him- 

of  pardon.  But  if  it  does  not  mean  pardon  literally  and  truly, 
then  it  must  mean  something  else;  and  if  it  means  something 
else,  then  God  is  not  a  pardoning  God  literally  and  truly. 
But  pardon  is  no!  a  figurative  word;  it  is  not  taken  from  sensi- 
ble objects,  and  is  one  of  those  words  that  are  seldom  or  never 
used  in  a  figurative  sense.  We  hardly  ever  find  it  applied  out 
of  its  proper  legitimate  meaning. 


13 


self  declares,  he  is  a  sin-pardoning  God  ;  byjiis  pardon 
he  cuts  asunder  the  obligation  to  punishment.  Besides, 
our  Saviour  compares  himself  to  this  brazen  serpent,  and 
says,  "  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness, 
so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whoever  believeth 
on  him  might  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  Here 
then  we  have  the  truth  explicit.  As  it  was  not  the  brazen 
serpent  that  removed  the  venom  ;  but  God — so  it  is  not 
the  offering  of  Christ  that  takes  away  guilt,  but  God,  and 
in  that  way  by  which  alone  it  can  be  removed,  by  pardon  ; 
as  the  Saviour  himself  declared,  when  he  instituted  the 
memorials  of  his  death,  and  explained  their  design. 
"This,"  said  he,  "  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament, 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  See  also  Luke, 
xxvi.  44,  to  the  48  v.  Here  we  have  the  testimony  of 
the  Saviour,  as  he  understood  his  own  sacrifice  : — and  the 
disciple  differeth  not  from  the  master.  Says  Peter,  "  re- 
pent and  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  again, 
u  repent  and  believe,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out," 
not  '  cancelled*  ;'  nor  does  he  say,  '  for  they  are  cancell- 
ed.' Says  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  "  be  ye  kind,  one  to  ano- 
ther, tender  hearted,  forgiving  one  another,  even  as  God 
for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you  ;"  and  in  another  place, 
he  says  to  them  of  Christ,  "  in  whom  we  have  redemp- 
tion, even  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;"  and  to  the  Colossians 
he  asserts  the  same  truth,  "  in  whom  we  have  redemption, 
through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  And  so 
constantly  is  this  truth  held  up  in  the  Bible,  that  it  is  won- 
derful a  contrary  opinion  should  ever  have  been  advanced 
by  any  who  take  the  Bible  for  their  text  book. 

III.  Proposition.  The  word  justified,  is  used  to  signify 
pardon  in  the  New  Testament. 

I  shall  adduce  but  two  examples  of  this  truth  ;  not  be- 
cause more  cannot  be  found  ;  but  because  1  have  not  time, 
and  it  is  not  necessary.  If  the  other  two  propositions  are 
true,  this  is  of  course,  in  every  place  where  the  word  re- 
fers to  man's  acceptance  by  God.  But  what  I  mean  to  es- 
tablish is,  that  in  some  places  it  means  pardon,  and  not 
that  which  it  is  said  to  signify  in  other  places.  Both  in- 
stances I  shall  select,  are  from  the  mouth  of  the  great 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  The  first  is  in  the  conclusion  of  his 
discourse  to  the  Jews  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia — Acts  xiii. 
39  verse.  "  And  by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from 
all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  he  justified  by  the  law 

*  See  Note  b. 


14 


of  Moses."  Now  the  law  of  Moses  literally  just  ified  no 
one  ;  but  contained  a  provision  of  pardon  for  certain  of- 
fences— sins  of  ignorance — for  wilful  crimes  there  was  no 
forgiveness — "  he  must  be  stoned  without  the  camp." 
But  through  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  there  is  forgiveness  for 
all  things,  for  which  the  law  of  Moses  provided  no  offer- 
ing of  forgiveness.  Here  he  certainly  is  speaking  of  atone- 
ment, and  not  of  a  righteousness,  that  would  require  him 
to  use  the  term  justified.  And  as  pardon  comes  on  account 
of  atonement,  justified  here  must  signify  pardon.  The 
other  place  is  Romans,  v.  9.  "  Much  more  then,  being 
justified  through  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath 
through  him."  Here  too,  he  most  assuredly  is  speaking 
of  that  which  saves  from  punishment,  and  not  of  any  thing 
which  entitles  to  eternal  life ;  in  reference  to  atonement, 
and  therefore  signifying  pardon.  Besides,  its  idea  is  un- 
doubtedly the  same  he  intended  to  convey  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  when  he  said  to  them,  "  in  whom  we  have  redemp- 
tion through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 
From  which  flows  the  inference,  that  Paul,  when  he  uses 
this  word  in  reference  to  the  salvation  of  a  sinner,  his  ac- 
ceptance by  God,  the  passing  from  a  state  of  condemna- 
tion to  that  in  which  there  is  no  condemnation,  uses  it  al- 
ways in  the  same  sense.  These  propositions  being  \hus 
established  ;  the  consequence  is,  the  assembly  of  Divines 
gave  the  true  definition  of  justification  ;  and  as  this  was 
taken  as  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle,  by  the  words  1  being 
justified,''  the  answer  to  the  inquiry  is  made  out.  The 
Apostle_  means  an  act  of  adjudication  by  God,  by  which  he 
pardons  the  sinner  for  all  his  transgressions,  and  of  course 
grants  him  all  the  privileges  a  righteous  person  would  re- 
ceive ;  for  in  the  perfect  government  of  God,  he  that  is  par- 
doned must  be  in  as  good  a  condition  as  he  that  needs  no 
pardon  ;  therefore  in  acceptance  with  God,  and  especially 
so,  as  in  this  case  God  has  been  pleased  to  accompany 
his  offer  of  pardon  with  the  assurance  of  great  and  pre- 
cious blessings,  even  the  gift  of  eternal  life. 

From  this  I  infer,  1st, 

That  the  mediation  of  Christ  does  not  remove  the  obli- 
gation of  God  to  punish  the  sinner  by  taking  away  his 
guilt ;  but  by  removing  the  obstruction  to  pardon. 

Now  guilt  is  no  obstruction  to  pardon,  and  it  is  not  be- 
cause a  man  is  guilty  that  he  cannot  be  pardoned  ;  for  this 


15 


is  the  very  thing  that  needs  pardon.  And  pardon  can  be 
concerned  about  nothing  else  but  guilt.d 

d  As  strange  and  unlooked  for,  as  it  may  be,  I  shall  bring  Dr.  Owen  to 
witness  to  this  position.  Although  he  has  spent  much  time  to  prove  that 
our  guilt  was  imputed  to  Christ,  put  upon  him,  so  that  he  literally  under- 
went the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  the  Church,  yet  in  more  places  than 
one,  he  states  the  true  scriptural  way  by  which  guilt  is  removed.  I  know 
it  is  imputing  inconsistency  to  that  venerable  divine  ;  but  his  own  words 
compel  me  to  do  it,  as  will  appear  by  a  few  extracts  from  his  work  on 
Justification.  Chap.  VII.  page  288,  in  adducing  proofs  that  guilt  of  sin 
only  is  imputed  to  Christ,  he  says,  quoting  Psalm  xxxii.  5.  "  Thou 
forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin,  that  is,  the  guilt  of  it,  which  is  that  alone 
that  is  taken  away  by  pardon."  Guilt  he  defines  in  numerous  places,  as 
I  have,  and  in  some  uses  the  same  words.  Chap.  XII.  page  379,  he  says, 
"  Wherefore  the  pardon  of  sin  dischargeth  the  guilty  person  from  being 
liable,  or  obnoxious  unto  anger,  wrath  or  punishment,  due  unto  his  sin." 
At  page  380,  speaking  of  pardon,  he  says,  "  it  only  removeth  guilt." — 
Same  page,  "  the  state  of  innocency ;  which  is  the  height  of  what  can  be 
attained  by  the  complete  pardon  of  sin."  Again,  same  page — "  the  par- 
don of  sin,  which  only  frees  us  from  the  penalty  of  the  law."  Page  383 — 
"  by  the  pardon  of  sin  we  are  freed  only  from  the  obligation  unto  punish- 
ment." Page  388 — "  that  we  be  freed  from  the  damnatory  sentence  of 
the  law,  which  we  are  by  pardon  of  sin."  These  quotations  exhibit  clear- 
ly Dr.  Owen's  view  of  pardon.  I  do  not  quote  him,  because  I  suppose  him 
to  believe  our  guilt  is  taken  away  by  pardon,  for  this  his  theory  of  impu- 
tation will  not  allow  ;  but  to  show  he  agrees  with  me  in  saying,  guilt  is  that 
alone  about  which  pardon  is  concerned.  I  know  he  believes  that  substi- 
tution takes  away  the  guilt  of  the  elect,  that  it  was  transferred  to  Christ. 
That  he  is  not  consistent  with  himself;  and  that  his  view  excludes  pardon 
from  the  plan  of  redemption,  the  following  part  of  this  note  I  humbly  be- 
lieve will  show.  I  will  here  just  remark,  that  if  pardon  frees  us  "  from 
the  damnatory  sentence  of  the  law,"  then  something  else  does  not  do  it ; 
for  it  is  as  impossible  that  two  causes  should  produce  the  same  identical 
effect,  as  it  is  that  there  should  be  an  effect  without  a  cause  :  therefore,  as 
pardon  removes  our  guilt,  the  substitution  of  Christ  was  not  of  such  a  na- 
ture and  extent  as  to  bring  upon  him  our  guilt  ;  but  was  a  substitution  to 
preserve  the  righteousness  of  God  when  he  pardons  the  sinner,  and  be- 
stows on  him  eternal  blessedness — when  he  "  justifieth  the  ungodly."  To 
return — Compare  the  above  extracts  with  the  following,  taken  from  that 
part  of  his  work  on  Justification,  which  treats  of  the  imputation  of  sin 
unto  Christ.  Page  281,  he  says,  "  There  is  therefore  no  imputation  of 
sin,  where  there  is  no  imputation  of  its  guilt."  Page  287,  "  unless  the 
guilt  of  tin  was  imputed  unto  Christ,  sin  was  not  imputed  unto  him  in  any 
sense."  Page  281,  "That  therefore  which  we  affirm  herein  is,  that  our 
sins  were  so  transferred  on  Christ,  as  that  thereby  he  became,  Reus,  re- 
sponsible unto  God,  and  obnoxious  unto  punishment  in  the  justice  of  God 
for  them."  This  transfer  no  one  will  say  is  pardon,  any  more  than  he 
would  call  a  transfer  of  a  debt  from  one  to  another,  the  giving  up  of  the 
debt,  a  relinquishment  of  the  claim  to  payment.  If  a  creditor  say  to  his 
debtor,  '  here  is  your  note,  I  give  it  up  without  payment ;'  this  would  be  an 
exact  analogy  to  the  pardon  of  crimes.  Debt  originates  the  claim  to 
payment — crime  originates  the  obligation  to  punishment.  Debt  is  con- 
nected to  payment  by  a  claim  founded  on  commercial  justice — destroy 
this  claim  and  the  debtor  is  free  ;  transfer  it  upon  another,  and  he  that 
was  the  debtor  is  free  ;  but  the  claim  is  not  destroyed — and  surely  no  one 
could  say  the  creditor  conferred  any  favour,  if  hi*  debt  continued  in  just 


16 


Now  if  the  Mediation  of  Christ  takes  away  guilt,  there 
is  nothing  to  pardon,  and  no  more  room  for  the  exercise  of 

as  good  a  condition  as  previous ;  and  if  in  the  end  the  payment  is  made, 
it  is  a  fact,  that  the  creditor  has  given  up  no  claim.  Also,  if  after  the 
transfer  is  made,  the  debt  is  given  up,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  given 
up  to  the  first  debtor.  To  this,  crime  has  one  analogy,  viz.  it  binds  the 
criminal' ;  but  this  is  one  of  the  least  important  of  its  characteristics.  Id 
every  other  respect  it  is  dissimilar.  Debts  may  be  transferred  from  one 
to  another,  crime  cannot — debts,  if  paid,  produce  no  injury  ;  crime  always 
produces  injury,  and  if  punishment  follow,  still  the  injury  is  not  undone, 
punishment  can  make  no  restoration  ;  but  payment  is  a  complete  restora- 
tion. Crime  is  connected  with  punishment  by  guilt,  the  obligation  to  pu- 
nishment, which  is  founded  upon  distributive  justice— destroy  this  obliga- 
tion, and  the  criminal  is  free  ;  and  that  act  which  does  this,  is  pardon.  But 
if  crime  could  be  transferred  to  another,  so  that  he  should  come  under  the 
obligation  to  endure  the  penally,  no  one  would  say  the  obligation  is  given 
up,  destroyed  ;  but  that  it  exists  undiminished  in  its  binding  force.  No- 
thing like  pardon  has  taken  place.  And  lurther,  if  it  is  given  up,  it  must 
be  given  up  where  it  binds  ;  he  to  whom  it  is  transferred,  must  be  pardon- 
ed ;  for  pardon  removes  guilt — and  surely  it  cannot  be  removed  from  the 
place  where  it  is  not.  Therefore,  as  Dr.  Owen  affirms,  "  that  our  sins 
were  so  transferred  on  Christ,  as  that  thereby  he  became  guilty,  obnoxious 
unto  punishment, "  if  there  has  been,  or  is  any  pardon  dispensed  in  the  plan 
of  redemption,  as  the  guilt  of  the  Church,  according  to  his  theory,  was 
transferred  on  Christ,  Christ  was  pardoned.  But  as  the  supporters  of 
this  theory  believe  that  Christ  endured  the  penalty,  "  exhausted  all  of 
hell,"  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Mason,  he  was  not  pardoned,  not  "  freed 
from  the  obligation  to  punishment :"  therefore,  by  this  theory  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  pardon  in  the  whole  gospel-scheme,  and  the  Lord's  prayer  is 
a  farce.  I  cannot  help  the  conclusion  ;  Dr.  Owen  furnished  the  premises. 
Should  any  be  so  far  astray  from  the  true  idea  of  pardon,  as  to  say  that 
Dr.  Owen  considered  the  transfer  of  guilt  and  pardon  to  be  the  same,  a 
few  words  from  thy  282  page,  Chap.  VII.  will  lead  them  back,  and  show 
the  contrary.  He  says,  speaking  of  guilt,  "  if  it  was  not  transferred  on 
Christ,  it  remains  on  believers,  or  it  is  nothing.  It  will  be  said  that  guilt 
is  taken  away  by  the  free  pardon  of  sin."  To  this  he  objects,  and  main- 
tains the  other  ;  therefore  he  did  not  suppose  them  the  same. 

I  cannot  close  this  note,  already  protracted  beyond  expectation,  without 
noticing  another  inconsistency  in  which  this  theory  of  imputation  involves 
its  advocates.  I  shall  still  select  from  Dr.  Owen.  And  here  it  may  be 
proper  to  observe,  that  I  have  confined  myself  to  this  writer,  because  he  is 
a  standard  author  in  the  Seminary,  and  his  works  have  been  declared  to  be 
without  errors  by  its  Principal.  At  page  281,  this  author  follows  up  his 
affirmation  already  quoted,  by  saying,  '  He,'  Christ,  '  was  alienae  cul- 
pa? reus,'  guilty  of  the  crime  of  another  :  "  Perfectly  innocent  in  himself;  but 
took  our  guilt  on  him,  or  our  obnoxiousness  to  punishment ;"  and  yet  on 
the  page  immediately  preceding,  he  asserts,  and  undoubtedly  with  truth, 
that  **  there  can  be  no  '  obligatio  ad  poenam,'  obligation  to  punishment, 
where  there  is  not  dignitas  po;nae,"  desert,  worthiness  of  punishment.  If 
the  Latins  had  any  words  to  express  blame,  desert  of  evil,  criminality, 
they  were  dignitas  putruz.  But  to  confirm  this,  he  says,  same  page, 
"  Reatus  culpa  is  nothing  but  dignitas  poena  propter  culpam.1'  "  And 
where  there  is  not  this  reatus  culpa:,  there  can  be  no  poena,  punishment 
properly  so  called.  So  therefore,  there  can  be  no  punishment,  nor  reatus 
poena,  the  guilt  of  it,  but  where  there  is  reatus  culpoe,  or  sin  considered 
with  its  guilt."  Therefore,  as  Christ  had  our  reatus  ponce,  obnoxious- 
ness unto  punishment  according  to  one  part  of  the  first  of  these  last  ex  - 


17 


grace  than  if  man  had  never  fallen.  But  says  Paul,  "jus- 
tification is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace" — and  if  it 
is  pardon,  we  see  it  is  grace  from  beginning  to  end — and 
if  it  is  grace,  it  cannot  be  a  purchase  ;  but  must  be  a  free 
gift,  and  thus  saith  the  scripture.  [See  Rom.  v.  15,  16,  If, 
18,  vi.  23.  viii.  32.]  To  corroborate  this,  let  us  lo  kai 
our  idea  of  punishment,  its  design,  the  reason  for  punish- 
ing. The  general  idea  of  punishment,  I  believe,  is  not 
that  it  is  inflicted,  because  a  person  is  guilty  ;  but  that 
some  good  may  result,  either  by  preventing  the  repetition 
of  crime,  or  by  preserving  the  honour  and  character  of 
the  injured  government.  For  as  the  object  of  government 
is  happiness,  if  the  execution  of  its  laws  has  no  tendency 
to  this  grand  object,  to  punish  can  be  nothing  but  to  pro- 
mote misery.  Then  if  a  man  is  punished  because  he  is 
guilty,  he  is  not  punished  for  any  other  reason,  and  there- 
fore it  can  be  nothing  but  adding  evil  to  evil.  But  if  he  is. 
punished  to  prevent  the  repetition  of  crime,  or  to  maintain 
the  honour  ana  character  of  government,  or  both  together, 
is  the  reason,  then  strictly  and  correctly  speaking,  he  is 
not  punished  because  he  is  guilty — though  it  is  in  conse- 

tracfc,  he  had  also  more,  dignitas  pence,  our  rcalus  eulpoe,  criminalilj, 
(very  different  from  innocence)  which  is  against  another  part  of  that  same 
extract.  I  therefore  humbly  believe  that,  as  it  was  impossible  for  Christ 
to  have  our  criminality,  dignitas  pwnce,  he  did  not  have  our  obligation  to 
punishment,  obligatio  ad  poenam,  and  therefore  he  did  not  suffer  "  pu- 
nishment, properly  so  called  ;"  but  he  made  an  atonement— and  "  the 
very  idea  of  an  atonement  or  satisfaction  for  sin,  is,  that  it  is  "  something 
which,  to  the  purposes  of  supporting  t!  e  authority  of  the  divine  law,  and 
the  dignity  and  consistency  of  the  diviae  government,  is  equivalent  to  tha 
punishment  of  sinners,  according  to  the  literal  threatening  of  the  divine 
law."*  As  the  Saviour  was  a  lamb  without  spot,  knew  no  sin,  his  nor 
ours,  I  humbly  conclude  that  he  was  set  forth,  not  to  undergo  the  pur 
nishmentof  sin  ;  but  to  be  a  propitiation — to  declare  the  righteousness  of 
God,  that  he  might  be  just,  and  Hie  ju3iifier  of  him  that  believelh  in 
Jesus  ;  that  is,  just  when  he  pardons  th.°  sinner,  and  accepts  him  graci* 
ously.  Much  the  Saviour  did  do  and  suffer  to  bring  us  unto  God  ;  and 
"  much,'  I  believe,  as  Dr.  Owen  says,  page  288,  '  the  Saviour  might  do 
and  suffer  on  the  occasion  of  sin,  if  guilt  was  not  imputed  unto  him  ;"  al- 
though there  are  those  that  say,  '  if  C'lirist  suffered  without  having  the  guilt 
of  sin  upon  him,  there  is  not  a  greater  act  of  injustice  in  all  God's  uni» 
verse,  than  God  himself  is  guilty  of,  in  permitting  an  innocent  being  to 
suffer.' 

*  See  Selections  on  the  Afone?nenf,  the  three  last  dis- 
courses by  the  Rev.  J.  Edwards,  D.  1).;  af*o  Fuller,  his  G<;8- 
pel  its  own  witness,  Part  II.  and  his  Essays,  also  Wardlaw  on 
ihe  Socin.  Con. 


}8 


quence  of  guilt,  for  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  pw 
nishment  without  guilt.  Nor  is  the  reason  of  punishing, 
l)cth  these  considerations,  guilt  and  government  united  ; 
but  in  consideration  of  government  solely.  For  it  is  guilt 
that  directs  where  it  should  be  inflicted  to  obtain  its  object. 
Guilt  fastens  it  on  the  criminal,  and  not  on  another.  The 
law  of  punishment  says,  I  punish  you,  because  you  are 
guilty  ;  but  I  punish,  that  my  integrity  may  not  be  tarnish- 
ed, and  the  designs  of  my  institution  be  frustrated.  And 
it  is  upon  this  idea  of  punishment  that  the  principle  of 
commutation  is  founded.  For  if  a  man  must  be  punished, 
because  he  is  guilty,  there  could  be  no  change  of  persons, 
— for  change  the  persons,  and  you  are  punishing  the  inno- 
cent ;  as  that  which  placed  the  other  under  obligation  to 
punishment,  can  never  become  his  :  therefore  punish  a 
substitute,  and  you  go  right  against  the  supposition,  that 
the  guilty  is  punished,  because  he  is  guilty'.  But  if  you 
punish  for  the  good  of  government,  and  wisdom  and  good- 
ness say  it  is  best  for  government  to  vindicate  its  honour, 
if  possible,  in  some  other  way  than  punishing  the  criminal, 
substitution  is  a  way  by  which  government  can-preserve 
its  integrity  and  promote  the  best  good. 

Here  then  we  see,  that,  as  punishment  in  the  govern- 
ment of  God  is  eternal,  and  so  not  to  prevent  the  repetition 
of  crime,  but  for  the  honour  of  this  government,  there  is 
an  obstacle  to  the  pardon  of  sin  as  insuperably  great,  as 
this  government  is  glorious,  viz.  its  honour,  and  the  inte- 
grity and  character  of  the  Governor.  And  here  we  have 
the  definite  object  of  the  great  propitiatory  sacrifice,  the 
Mediation  of  the  Son  of  God,  viz.  the  preservation  of  the 
honour  and  integrity  of  God's  government,  when  it  lets  the 

:  e  Let  me  not  be  understood  to  say,  that  he  who  is  guilty,  who  has  be- 
come a  criminal,  does  not  deserve  punishment;  but  that  he  is  not  punish- 
ed merely  because  he  deserves  it.  For  the  fact,  that  punishment  does,  not 
always  follow  the  desert  of  it,  when  proved,  proves  that  desert  is  not  the 
reason  for  punishing.  Desert  respects  distributive  justice ;  and  this, 
while  it  sanctions  the  act  of  treating  a  person  according  to  his  deserts,  does 
not  forbid  favours  to  be  shown  to  him  who  deserves  evil.  It  is  another 
principle  which  determines  this.  It  is  another  principle  which  directs  pu- 
nishment to  be  inflicted,  or  pardon  granted.  If  the  general  good,  public 
justice,  demands  that  punishment  be  inflicted,  it  forbids  the  dispensation  of 
iiny  favours  which  would  prevent  the  good  that  is  sought  in  punishing ;  but 
if  it  does  not  require  punishment,  then  the  highest  desert  of  evil  will  not 
prevent  the  dispensation  of  the  greatest  favours.  Therefore  as  pardon 
is  not  granted  to  the  criminal  because  it  is  his  just  due,  so  neither  is  pu- 
nishment inflicted  cn  a  criminal,  because  it  is  his  just  due.  Botti  are  dis- 
pensed cn  the  same  principle — public  justice. 


19 


Criminal  go  free,  of  the  character  of  God  when  he  stretches 
forth  to  the  condemned  sinner  the  sceptre  of  mercy. 

Here  we  have  an  answer  to  a  question  that  has  often 
been  made,  and  often  perplexed  the  pious  mind  ;  viz.  if 
God  is  a  pardoning  God,  does  and  can  forgive  sin,  where 
was  the  necessity  of  an  atonement  ?  Here  you  perceive 
it  is  assumed,  that  atonement  takes  away  sin,  [guilt  of  sin,] 
whereas  it  is  made,  that  pardoning  may  not  be  sin.  The 
answer  therefore  is,  that  atonement  is  made  that  sin  may 
be  pardoned-— to  remove  the  obligation  to  punish — that 
obligation  binding  on  the  lawgiver  to  inflict  the  penalty  of 
the  law — and  not  that  obligation  which  binds  the  offender 
to  the  endurance  of  this  penalty.  This  one,  pardon  re- 
moves ;  atonement,  the  other.  That  atonement  does  not 
remove  both,  is  evident  from  two  facts — Jst.  There  is  such 
a  thing  as  pardon  in  the  Bible  ;  and  "2d.  There  could  not 
be  such  a  thing,  if  it  did  [remove  both.] 

2d.  I  infer  the  fallacy  of  that  theory  of  redemption, 
which  views  our  sins  as  debts,  and  says  the  Saviour  pays 
them.  This  theory,  reason  as  much  as  its  supporters 
may,  excludes  pardon  entirely ;  unless  that  is  pardon 
which  lets  the  debtor  go  when  his  debt  is  paid — and  who 
ever  called  this  pardon  in  any  such  transaction  of  human 
life  ?  If  our  sins  are  debts,  and  the  Saviour  pays  them, 
we  are  released  of  course,  and  our  justification  before  God, 
will  be  so  far  from  being  any  thing  like  pardon  and  gra- 
cious acceptance,  that  ~we  can  stand  in  his  presence,  and 
claim  all  the  freedom  those  have  a  right  to  who  have  dis- 
charged their  debts,  and  in  this  case  it  will  be  nothing  less 
than  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God  ;  and  all  this,  the  will 
of  the  creditor  notwithstanding.  But  this  is  not  Bible. 
The  will  of  our  creditor  (as  this  theory  styles  our  (iod)  is 
concerned.  It  is  by  his  will  we  are  sanctified.  We  be- 
come sons  of  God  by  adoption — we  are  brought  into  this 
liberty — we  do  not  get  it  by  claim.  God  says,  "  I  will  have 
mercy  upon  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will 
he  hardeneth."  Besides,  if  our  sins  were  like  debts,  where 
was  the  necessity  of  Christ's  coming  into  this  world,  and 
suffering  as  he  did  ?  For  who  ever  disputed  that  man  had 
a  right  to  burn  his  note  and  let  his  debtor  go  free  ;  or  will 
it  be  said  that  God  has  not  a  right  that  man  has  ?  Does 
God  delight  in  mercy,  and  yet  must  receive  the  full  amount 
of  his  dues  ?  especially  when  giving  will  not  impoverish, 
him,  nor  withholding  make  rich.    No,  it  is  not  so. 


20 


Socinus  tfaid,  our  sins  are  debts- — God  is  our  Creditor — fie 
has  a  right  to  give  up  his  claims,  if  he  please — we  cannot 
pay — He  delights  in  mercy — has  declared  himself  mer- 
ciful and  gracions  Therefore  he  remits  them — there- 
fore no  need  of  a  surety — therefore  no  Saviour — there- 
fore Christ  is  not  the  Son  of  God — therefore  he  was  a  mere 
man,  and  being  a  very  good  man,  fell  a  martyr  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  his  principles/. 

And  Dr.  Owen  reasoning  against  Socinus,  (I  learn  this 
from  Dr.  Fuller)  distinguishes  between  right  as  it  respects 
government,  and  right  as  it  respects  debt,  and  says  the 
tatter  may  be  given  up  without  a  satisfaction,  but  not  the 
former  ;  and  adds,  our  sins  are  called  debts,'  not  proper- 
ly but  metaphorically.1 

3d.  1  infer  the  fallacy  of  that  dilemma  which  is  ascrib- 
ed to  Dr.  Owen,  viz.  "  that  Christ  died  for  all  the  sins  of 
all  men,  or  for  some  of  the  sins  of  all  men,  or  for  all  the 
sins  of  some  men." 

The  two  first  not  being  true,  the  last  is  established  of 
course — admit  the  premises — therefore  the  doctrine  of  li« 
mited  atonement.  And  if  the  supposition  under  which  this 
dilemma  is  made  is  true,  the  doctrine  is  inevitable.  But 
here  is  the  error — the  supposition  is  mistaken,  viz.  that 
Christ  died  to  cancel  (*)  sins.    This  is  not  Bible.  Himself 

/  This,  I  believe,  is  a  just  representation  of  the  ground  on  which  SocinuJ 
founded  his  heresy.  He,  it  is  known,  upon  the  principle  that  our  sins 
are  like  debts,  rejects  completely  the  satisfaction  of  atonement,  and  runs 
into  the  absurdity  that  sin  is  a  small  evil,  and  that  God  exercises  mercy 
without  regard  to  the  justice  of  his  government.  Others,  taking  the  same 
principle  for  a  basis,  but  denying  that  these  debts  can  be  given  up  without 
a  satisfaction,  have  made  the  satisfaction,  instead  of  an  atonement,  which  is 
the  substitute  for  the  pnnismenUhat  is  due  for  sin,  to  be,  as  to  the  Church, 
the  complete  and  literal  punishment  of  tier  sins ;  and  a  provision  of  su- 
perabounding  righteousness,  which  will  supply  the  deficiency  that  is  incur- 
red  while  the  Church  fails  to  perform  perfect  obedience.  While  Socinus 
makes  no  provision  for  the  honour  of  God,  when  he  restores  the  rebel,  this 
last  excludes  pardon  from  the  plan  of  redemption,  and  every  other  exer- 
cise of  grace  on  the  part  of  God,  except  the  single  particular  of  admitting  a 
surety,  which,  in  human  concerns,  is  not  usually  considered  a  very  great  fa- 
vour granted  by  the  creditor ;  and  gives  a  perfect  claim  to  eternal  life,  to  all 
those  for  whom  the  Saviour  was  surety.  I  have  given  this  concise,  and,  I  be- 
lieve, true  representation  of  these  two  schemes,  because  those  who  condemn 
me  for  not  adhering  to  the  latter,  have  charged  me  with  holding  the  former, 
or  some  of  its  fundamental  principles.  The  discourse,  I  trust,  while  it  shows 
my  agreement  with  multitudes  who  maintain  a  scheme  differing  from  each  of 
these,  will  show  I  am  no  follower  of  Socinus,  and  that,  instead  of  embrac- 
ing an  error  of  his  heresy,  I,  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  greater  portion 
of  the  Christian  Church,  reject  altogether  the  principle  of  considering  sin* 
as  debts. 
g.See  Note  b. 


21 


says  his  blood  is  shed  for  the  remission  of  sin — not  for 
sin  itself  ;  but  that  it  might  be  pardoned,  and  God  still  be 
just ;  that  God  might  forgive  iniquity  ;  not  to  take  away 
iniquity  and  leave  man  not  subject  to  the  penalty  of  the 
law  ;  but  that  the  claims  of  the  law  may  be  remitted  ;  that 
God  may  pardon  the  offender,  accept  him  graciously  and 
love  him  freely. 

And  now  will  any  one  say  this  is  doing  little,  this  is  as- 
cribing little  to  our  Saviour  ?  I*  it  not  ascribing  all — 
our  salvation  with  all  its  blessings,  and  the  preservation 
of  the  honour  and  glory  of  God  and  his  righteousness  ; — 
that  glory  of  his  God  which  is  dearer  to  the  Christian  than 
his  own  existence — is  this  little  ?  — the  full  fruition  and 
eternal  participation  by  God's  children,  of  the  joys  of 
beholding  this  glory — the  glory  of  that  God  whose  name 
Jesus's  death  did  glorifv  ? 

Is  this  little  ? 


22 


LETTERS. 


New-York,  12lli  March,  1816V 

To  Mr.  Lorino  D.  Dewey — 

SIR — It  is  matter  of  grief  to  us,  that  any  of  our  pupils,  whom  we 
have  been  endeavouring  to  lead  into  Utu  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,  should  turn  away  from  the  holy  commandment  delivered  unto  him. 
This,  mi-guided  youth,  is  your  own  case.  The  doctrines  which  you  have 
avowed  juyour  discourse  submitted  to  us,  and  in  your  conversation  with  us 
relative  thereto,  are  so  deeply  erroneous,  so  radically  subversive  of  the  whole 
Gospel  scheme,  and  so  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men,  that  they  cannot  be  to- 
lerated in  the  Seminary  under  our  care.  It  shall  not  here  be  so  much  as 
questioned,  no  not  for  an  hour,  whether  attacks  upon  essential  parts  of 
the  Redeemer's  work,  are  to  be  ]>cnuittcd  in  any  shape,  or  upon  any  pre- 
tence whatever.  , 

We  are,  therefore,  under  the  afflicting  necessity  of  informing  you,  that 
your  connexion  with  our  Seminary  ceases  from  this  d;iy.  You  will  consider 
the  present  decision  as  peremptory  ;  and  not  to  he  altered,  unless  it  shall 
please  God  to  give  you  a  sounder  mind,  and  enable  you  to  recover  your- 
•  ■  1 1  out  of  Ihe  snare  of  the  devil.  That  such  may  be  yuur  happiness  is  oar 
heart's  desire  and  prayer  for  you. 

J.  M.  MASON,  Principal  Th.  Sem. 
A.  R.  C.  New-York. 

J.  M.  MATTHEWS,  AuU.  Profmor 
Th.  Htm.  A.  H.  C.  New-York. 


New-York,  March  12,  1C16. 

'To  the  Principal  and  Assistant  Profeuort  of  the  Theological  Seminary, 
A.  Ji.  C.  New-York  t 

HONOURED  SIRS, 

Your  communication  of  dismemberment  from  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary of  the  A.  R.  C.  in  New-York.,  received  this  afternoon,  I  cannot  saj 
was  unexpected,  when  1  considered  the  stress  laid  by  thi*  Seminary  upon 
certain  controverted  points  ;  and  neither  can  I  toy  I  feel  much  alarmed  for 
myself,  when  I  see  the  same  principle  that  expels  me  from  your  Theological 
Seminary,  if  it  could  be  carried  out,  would  cast  out  of  the  Church  and  Mi- 
nistry, multitudes  whose  labours  in  the  love  of  the  truth  enlarge  the  bor- 
ders of  Ziou — when  I  find  a  place  in  point  of  belief,  with  multiiudi  s  who 
have  been  eminent  workmen  in  the  v  ineyard  of  the  Lord,  and  with  many 
who  now  shine,  the  choice  lights  of  the  Church,  itat  while  it  assigns  me 
such  a  station,  I  rejoice  also  that  the  effect  of  litis  principle  is  confined.  It 
debars  me  from  some  valuable  privileges ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  takes 
away  these  benefits,  it  casts  me  without  its  further  control,  and  affords  an 
opportunity  to  embrace  other  advantages.  I  had  come  within  its  influence, 
little  suspecting  that,  at  this  time  of  the  world,  such  a  principle  existed  any 
where,  without  the  limits  of  Papal  power.  You  will  not  expect  me  to 
think  this  act  deserved,  nor,  1  hope,  think  me  impertinent,  when  I  say, 
my  opinion  caan.ot  sanction  it  as  judicious,  considering  the  present 


23 


sfate  of  the  American  Church.  But  white  I  thus  freely  and  ingenuously 
give  you  my  view  of  it,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  judge  favourably  of  the  mo- 
tives of  this  action  ;  nor  doubt,  that  the  respected  officers  of  this  Seminary 
"  verily  believe  they  are  doing  God's  service."  I  believe  them  when  they 
say,  "  It  is  matter  of  grief  to  us,"  and  that  the  "  necessity,"  under  which 
they  were  thus  to  act,  was  an  "  afflicting"  one;  for  repeated  have  been 
the  reasons  offered  to  my  mind,  to  believe  them  to  be  the  sincere  followers 
of  the  Lamb,  and  hearty  supporters  of  his  kingdom  ;  and  therefore  they  la- 
ment to  be  obliged  to  separate  from  such,  one  who  professes  and  hopes  he 
belongs  to  that  blessed  company.  Be  pleased  to  accept  the  declaration  of 
my  cordial  respect  for  them  as  such,  and  the  grateful  acknowledgment  of 
treatment,  favours,  and  instructions,  that  have  evinced  them  to  be  such. 
I  hope  they  will  be  so  good  as  to  accept  this  as  a  small  expression  of  the 
gratitude  I  owe  them,  and  the  assurance  of  my  approbation  of  all  their 
treatment  of  me,  this  last  act  excepted,  since  I  have  been  in  this  Semi- 
nary. 

But  permit  me,  before  I  leave  you,  as  I  have  no  way  of  vindicating  my- 
self, unless  I  should  appeal  to  that  public  which  cannot  be  keptunacquaint- 
ed  with  my  expulsion,  to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  charge  laid  against 
me,  through  tire  belief  of  the  correctness  of  which  you  have  cut  off  my 
connexion  with  this  Seminary.  As  the  refutation  of  that  part  of  it  which 
declares  ray  doctrines  to  be  "  erroneous,"  cannot  be  attempted  in  this 
place,  I  shall  pass  over  the  assertion*,  as  assertion  proves  no  fact.  But  with 
an  unqualified  ipse  dixit,  you  declare  them  "  subversive  of  the  whole  Gos- 
pel scheme."  As  you  have  unhesitatingly  declared  your  opinion  of  my 
doctrines,  and  more,  in  the  manner  of  this  declaration  pronounced  your 
views  to  be  right,  you  will  permit  me  to  state  to  you  mine,  in  relation  to 
some  of  yours.  That  my  doctrines  are  subversive  of  your  peculiar  Gospel 
scheme,  I  know  ;  and  that  yours  is  the  scheme  that  subverts  the  Gospel  in 
many  important  points,  I  believe.  Is  not  the  Gospel  good  news  to  man 
without  limitation?  and  docs  not  your  scheme  make  it  good  news  only  t« 
a  part,  unless  the  others  are  so  richly  laden  with  disinterested  benevolence, 
as  to  rejoice  in  that  which,  while  it  brings  to  a  neighbour  the  highest  bless- 
ings, casts  them  into  the  deeper  misery  ?  Does  it  not  come  declaring,  that 
"  not  as  the  offence  so  also  the  free  gift,  but  if  through  the  offence  of  one 
many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gifj  by  grace,  by  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many?"  But  no,  says  your 
scheme,  not  even  so  much  as  the  offence  is  the  free  gift,  but  for  a  part  on- 
ly is  this  grace,  according  to  your  scheme.  "  Go,  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature,"  said  He  who  "-wSlleth  that  all  men  every  where  should 
repent,"  "  and  he  that  believeth  shall  Le  saved."  But,  says  your  scheme, 
there  are  creatures  for  whom,  even  if  they  should  believe,  there  is  no  salva- 
tion. The  charge  further  asserts,  without  a  reserve,  that  I  hold  doctrines 
'*  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men."  Is  it  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men,  to  hold  doc- 
trines which  make  it  consistent  to  invite  all  sinners,  without  limitation,  to 
the  Gospel  feast,  saying,  "  Come,  for  ail  things  are  ready ;"  and  to  charge 
the  failure  of  an  iriterest  in  Jesus,  wholly  to  their  own  foolish  neglect  of  this 
invitation?  And  is  it  not  runinous  to  say,  All  things  arc  ready,  but  ready 
tnJy  for  a  part  ?  Where  shall  the  others  go  ?  They  cannot  say  with  Pe- 
ter, "  To  whom  shall  we  go? — thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life;"  for 
Jesus  has  no  eternal  life  for  them — no  salvation  for  them  ;  they  are  without 
the  possibility  of  escape  for  ever,  and  this  too,  oy  your  scheme,  because: 
they  are  the  descendants  of  the  unhappy  father  of  his  race,  who  sinned 
perhaps  thousands  of  years  before  they  had  an  existence.  1  his  limited 
view  of  the  atonement,  which  shuts  out  even  hope  from  those  for  whose 
debts  (as  your  scheme  calls  sins)  there  is  no  satisfaction  made,  to  me  seema 
mo»t  fatally  "  rtjittous"*  to  man,  betides  dijj-aragi.ig  to  the  character  of 


24 


Oar  God.  To  bring  down  this  "  magnificent  moral  transaction  to  Ihe  le< 
vcl  of  a  commercial  bargain,"  is  such  a  belittleing  of  the  "  ways  of  God  to 
men,'1  as  chocks  my  reverence  for  bis  name ;  and  say;,  Thy  way;  art  aa 

our  ways.  To  quote  the  words  of  a  late  writer,  (VVardlaw  on  the  Socini- 
an  Controversy,)  u  I  know  not  how  yoit  may  lee),  my  brethren,  but  my 
mind  1  own  revolts  from  this  sort  of  minutely  calculating  process  on  such  a 
subject,  weighing  out  the  precise  quantum  of  suffering  due  to  each  sin  of 
each  individual  who  obtains  forgiveness  ;  and  thus  of  course  limiting  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Surety's  mediation.  Such  views  have  always"  (since  I 
have  known  there  were  such,  and  this  knowledge  I  have  gained  since  join- 
ing this  Seminary)  "  appeared  to  me  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  grandeur 
and  majesty  of  this  wonderful  part  of  the  Divine  Administration.''  But  1 
must  not  enlarge.  Such,  I  believe,  are  a  few  of  the  outlines  of  a 
scheme,  for  not  conforming  to  which,  and  supporting,  as  1  suppose,  a 
more  consistent  doctrine,  I  am  cut  off  from  your  Seminary.  Per- 
mit me  to  detain  you,  honoured  sirs,  a  little  further,  and  pardon  me 
for  taking  a  stand  upon  ground  so  near  to  an  equality  with  your- 
selves. It  is  done,  I  believe,  respectfully ;  certainly  the  intention  U 
such ;  and  only  upon  that  ground  of  equality  where  we  all  lake  the, 
same  rank — fallible,  fallen  men,  ever  liable  to  err.  Your  communica- 
tion views  me  of  an  "  unsound  mind,"  and  within  the  "  snare  of  the  de- 
vil." 1  speak  not  of  the  deep  reproach  this  would  heap  on  me ;  but  simply 
ask,  where  does  it  place  many  who,  e»en  in  Dr.  Owen's  day,  and  since, 
have  combated  the  idea  that  "  God  is  bound,  in  strict  justice,  in  respect  of 
his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  to  confer  grace  and  glory  on  all  those  for  whom  be 
died,"  and  that  "  he  died  only  for  the  elect?"  Where  does  it  place  Bax- 
ter and  Usher;  where  Pierce  and  Fuller;  where  Magee,  Hall,  and  Ward- 
law;  and  where  a  large  proportion  of  the  Rev.  Divines  of  the  American 
Church.''  Indeed,  Reverend  ^irc,  1  cannot  view  myself  that  "misguided 
youth"  you  believe,  nor  think  myself  presumptuous  in  having  some  confi- 
dence in  my  opinions,  when  in  casting  my  eye  over  orthodox  Christendom, 
?  behold  such  vast  portions  of  the  Church  professing  the  doctrines  you  con- 
demn— behold  them  in  England  and  Ireland,  establishment  and  dissenters, 
io  Scotland  and  America. 

With  grateful  respect,  yours,  I  trust,  in  the  bonds  of  a  tie  which  opinion 
cannot  sever;  but  which  shall  last  long  after  the  last  sound  of  clashing 
opinions  shall  have  died  away, 

LORING  D.  DEWEY. 

P.  S.  Immediately  on  the  receipt  of  your  communication,  I  commenced 
this  reply.  I  aftewards  hesitated  ;  but  further  consideration  pronounced  it 
a  duty  I  owed  to  myself,  that  you  might  better  understand  my  views.  It 
will  not  be  considered  to  have  any  respect  to  that  part  of  your  decision 
which  pronounces  it  "  peremptory,  and  not  to  be  altered."  I  am  sorry 
if  is  made,  or  rathar  that  there  is  a  difference,  but  I  never  should  have  at- 
U'Dia'cl  to  hf.ve  altered  it. 

h.  D.  D. 


